Is the Quran a rhetorical miracle (a linguistic miracle)

Is the Quran a rhetorical miracle (a linguistic miracle)


The original Arabic text could be found at Schizophrenia's blog

The Author of the original text is: Schizophrenia

Quranic verse translation is adopted from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue, guide for certain verses is from Yousuf Ali's Quran meanings.

Translated By: Areo

From Muslims point of view we find two groups, one that consider the Quran non-miraculous, and that Arabs did provide us with more complex and eloquent text compared to the Quran, and in light of this they interpret the challenge mentioned in Surat Al Israa Ayah # 88 as miraculous, based on the fact that in spite of their ability they were distracted to pursue the challenge, this is namely called (Alsirfah) the distraction, one such group to embrace this idea was Al-Motazilah (an Islamic Cult which means the disassociated or separated form) headed by Al-Nizam and his prodigy disciple Al-Gahez, who was considered the spokesman of Al-Motazilah for quite a long time, it is said that Al-Gahez has authored 360 books of which only few has made it to us.

The second group adopted the idea that the Quran is a linguistic wonder, a miracle in every meaning of the word, they consider it the ceiling of expression and eloquence in the Arabic language, no one have or will ever be able to achieve such linguistics perfection no matter what, this school of thought is the main stream of Ahl Al-Sunah Wa Al-Gamaaah (The major sect in the Islamic world which means the followers of the prophet and companions sayings and deeds), whom unlike AL-Motaziallh, in general favor narration rather than comprehension and logic, This idea was not based upon logic and proof, until the time of Abd EL-Kahir Al-Jerjani one of the greatest Arabic Scholars ever, and who coined the axiomatic phrase "The wording has done to the meanings (the text has achieved much for the context)", in spite of our opinion that he has tailored his book (The signs(proof) of miraculousness), to suit his opinion in a biased manner, regardless his theory is not to be belittled, and is considered as one of the most important theories in the analysis of the Arabic Language.

What I am aiming at is to analyze both ideas and try to answer the main question, Is the Quran a rhetorical miracle? We have to first seek to understand what is RHETORIC

Balagah the Arabic word for RHETORIC is a sub word derived from the word Balagha (which means declare , communicate, announce..) i.e. to transfer and convey a meaning, , it is a science subcategorized into three major science:

Firstly the science of Baian (Demonstration or manifestation), which engages in visionary portrays and emotions, it was called the science of Bian as it is concerned with emphasizing manifestation of meanings and thoughts by the use of comparison, metaphor, and allegory

Secondly we have the science of Maanii (meanings), which engages in meanings and ideas, and harmonizes between the linguistic structure, and the meaning required to be conveyed to the reader or the recipient, by the use of epitomes and verbose, conjunctions and dissociation.

Finally the science of Al-Badeei (art of speech) which engages in the proper formulation and fashion, and selection of words.

Before the time of Al-Jerjani men of literature such as Ibn Katibah would say of the dual nature of eloquence/meaning, they would even give precedence to words and composition over meanings (i.e. go for an eloquent text regardless of the context and clarity)

Jerjani saw this as a murder of thought, and took side with those who gave precedence to clarity and meaning, his view that rhetoric is not in the choice of eloquence and musical sounding, but in the composition and compilation, meaning by this how to link words in thought resulting context in order to achieve a certain meaning that is obvious and distinguishable, accordingly meanings not words were the build of his view of writing, for there is no composition in words and no compilation until links are established between words, and words become subsequent to meaning as much as required from it and meant by its use, in other word Jirjani's view is that eloquence and rhetoric is achieved and measured by conformity of what you say with what you need to say, and an alteration of any word in your speech in this case would breach and violate the meaning, eloquence and rhetoric.

The problem with Jirjani is that he neglected the changes that occur on words and their meanings and the rise of new meanings to the same wordings, which makes his view on Miraculous rhetoric a failure, because if rhetoric is the compliance of words to meanings and words are evolving while meanings, visionary portrays, comparisons, expire, so how do we judge a text as absolutely and unconditionally rhetoric? Not to mention miraculously rhetoric! Also followers of Jirjanis school of though, are criticized for neglecting the vague and obscure in the Quranic text, for some of the Quran's words are unknown and quite vague while others have given rise to much controversy, such as the Arabic alphabets used at the beginning of some chapters not to mention words like (Aba)- Surat Abas verse 31 which Omar Ibn ELkhatab refrained from interpreting as he did not know its meaning, Or ( Aladiat Dabha) – Surat Aladiat verse where much has been said on the meaning of Adiat, so in light of this how do we judge a text as per the theory of compliance of words to meanings that we don't even know for a certainty? As for me I think that the first school of thought is more logical, for Al-Motazilah when they mingled with Persians and Romans and studied poetry and literature, in light of newer knowledge concluded the idea of Al-Sirfah (the distraction), and courageously admitted that the Quran is not the ultimatum of linguistics, but due to the custom that the major Sunah and Gamaah sect attained of battling against any new thought, not much of their ideas and writings reached us, and all we heard is written by opposing parties.

Another quite important point is the fact that, rhetoric carries along the feelings and emotions of the nation it speaks to, for a lot of texts fail to preserve its eloquence during translation, the Quran itself is no exception, to make emphasis on this tryout changing the Quran to your colloquial language(if you are an Arabic speaking person the better) , you shall find yourself faced with a feeble collapsed text, far from literature or rhetoric science, when compared to your native literature, derived form philosophers and wise men over the years.

My opinion is that the challenge mentioned in the Quran has no meaning, for who can claim to have produced something similar to what Imrio Al Kais (a renowned Arab poet before the time of Mohammed)? No one, as no one can replicate ingenuity, for ingenuity is a special case, a unique experience owned by only one, such allegations are quite ambiguous, we here set a new challenge that someone can come up with poem as Al-Homa (fever) By Al-Motanabi, or Al-Yatimah (The orphan) by Dawkalah or Al-Talasim (The Mysteries) by Gobran, impossible?! Repeating an ingenious work means repetition of the genetic code, and the environmental aspects including the persons attributes and whereabouts, which is an impossibility.

And with regards to the saying of Al-Walid Ibn Almoghirah**, that the Muslims never seem to tire from repeating, this points to futility, when they are cornered and have nothing to say they start ( are you more capable of understanding the language than the old days Arabs) and repeat to you the well known story of Al-Walid Ibn Almoghirah that really is a very ridiculous story to narrate, for why if this is true didn't Al-Walid turn Muslim? Religion is no such matter to take lightly as he did, this is a crucial thing in our lives, also who transferred the story to us aren't the Muslims responsible for this , so are all whom were present during Al-Walids speech all stubborn or conspirators against the truth, to neglect his speech? Why didn' one of the presence turn Muslim?
Gentlemen you are raising your opponents to a pedestal and at the same time mocking them.


* The story of Al-Walid often quoted by Muslims goes as follows:
Al-Walid one of the wealthy masters and respected leaders in Mecca commented on the Quran that it is sweet and delightful to hear graceful and elegant, its start is fruitful and its ending is generous, it precedes and is never preceded, it beats all else and this cannot be the saying of a Human.
This of course is a very powerful statement and makes one wonder about the truth of it, but Muslims accept it unquestionably, this gives you a glimpse on the way the Muslims minds strives on the conspiracy theory (people other than Muslims really know that Islam is the truth but they refuse to follow it intentionally)


Now let us turn our attention to some examples of the poorness of the Quranic expression according to certain measures:

1. The first five verses of the Quran (as per the order Muslims claim Mohammed to have received it) are from Surat Al-Alaq, we notice the beautiful start (Read in the name of the creator- Iqraa Bism Rabika Alazi Khalak), it is an agile and spacious start, but for an unknown reason the author delved into specification of the creator, for I find no other reason other than chasing musical poetic structure when he said ( He created the human from a clot –Khalak Alinsan min Alaq), here the expanse of the word creator (which undefined would give a much more agreeing structure to the nature of a creator) was sacrificed by such particularization, again this scenario is repeated instantly in the following verse when he adds (He taught the human what he dosen't know –Wa Alam Al-Insan ma lam yaalam). Very interesting so he the creator taught us what we did not know so who taught us what we did know any way?

2. The majority of Suras (Chapters) know as Moufasal (detailed) resemble priests rhyming (sorcerers mumbo jumbo), which if used by today's standards by a poet would entitle him to be jailed in a five star prison, for instance Surat AL-Nas and Surat Al-Falaq , I really don't know what is linguistically miraculous in these verses? Do any of you know, please fell free to tell me. Also Surat Al-Homazah and Al-Feel, and Koraish …… the list is endless.

3. And they ask you about menstruation, say it is harmful (Arabic wording could mean evil, filth or pollution) so dissociate yourselves from women during their periods, what is rhetoric in this statement? Similarly, statements mentioned as a reference for rulings and verdicts, are introduced with no concern of good structure.


There has to be certain rules in a text such as the Quran to make it a miracle:

a. All humans have to fail providing something like it, but how do we specify this similarity, believers will not agree to any type of comparison, they sequester any attempt even before they approach it, as rhetoric is subject mostly to human taste, it becomes quite impossible to state otherwise, they don't give us a clear definition or set of agreed upon standards, but regardless I shall provide to you a text authored by Kas Ibn Saadah Al-Aiadi, whom was before the time of Islam , and you be the judge, as for myself, I see it as a similar text to the Quran:
Hear and comprehend, he who lives dies, and he who dies lies, any to come shall come, a black night, a morning bright, and a sky in height,
In earth are evictions and in skies predictions, I deservingly swear, in earth happiness follows what we bear, but God has a religion preferable than yours, he is the only God, not got or begot, Forever and ever , from him escape is never**
We could of course go on for hours ranting about the text and its selection of words and its immaculacy, and yes its miracles, how about those whom for thousand of years have been studying a single text !!
** Not accurately translated in an attempt to keep the rhyme in the text.

b. A miraculous text should be very clear and in no way similar to any other saying and fear of confusion with another type of text should not be present, why should it? If the text is miraculous then it should stand clear. If two texts are received the text allegedly miraculous should need no pointing out, so what about this two Hadith (Mohammed's teachings and sayings)
- Do not write after me but the Quran, and any who did otherwise should erase it.
- Zaid Ibn Thabit was asked by caliphate Moawiah to recite a Hadith and ordered one of his men to write it down but Zaid answered : Prophet of Allah ordered us to refrain from writing his sayings and erase what we already have.
The first is mentioned in Masnad Ahmed and corrected (approved as correct) by Muslim (a famous Hadith collector and verifier), while the other is also mentioned in Masnad Ahmed.
Both are undeniably accepted by Sunah sect whom justify this objection (as they actually went against the prophet's advise) by the fear of the Quran being mixed with the Hadith, while today after the Quran has settled in place the ban is over and needless, but how could there be such fear that a miraculous text is indistinguishable from a regular text,

c. A miraculous text should always be miraculous, by the same level throughout the text rhetoric should be on one level, so can Muslims honestly say that Surat Al-Nissa is as beautiful and elegant as Surat Yousuf.

d. A miraculous text should not be subject to change and evolution as we find when we study various human authors whom differ throughout their life in the quality of their works, if we list the Quran chronologically we will observe this evolvement, in matters such as the length of the verses, the use of musical structure and the integrity of the text……

e. A miraculous text will not bend itself to keep rhyming in sacrifice of meaning as we stated previously in Surat Al-Alaq, also we find this in Surat Al-Masad where it mentions, Tabat Yada Abi Lahain Wa Tab then in the next verse Sayaslah nara zat lahab. He will endure a fire that has flames (zat lahab) so what does zat lahab add here except rhyming, when was the last we saw a fire without flames? Why the repetition of the B (Baa) alphabet four times and then the omission in the fifth verse by using the word Masaad which ends in a D and not in the usual B used throughout the chapter, is this a miraculous addition or is it a rhetorical flaw

Is the Quran a linguistic miracle?

Click Here to Read More...

Is this God?

The original Arabic text could be found at The Forum of Arab Areligionists *

The Author of the original text is: Walid Mukaled

Quranic verse translation is adopted from Yousef Ali's Quran meanings and from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue.

Translated By: Mandamus

* Areligionists is the translators attempt to translate the Arabic word ladeeni which describes those who don't believe in a religion, such broad classification is not found in the English literature as far as my knowledge, the classification expands to include Atheist, Agnostics, Deists, while it might seem that an Agnostic is a similar description, the fact is Agnostics (especially from the Arabs perspective) could have a neutral stance towards religion, while Areligionists are quite sure on their stance towards religion as being from a human source. Additionally such broader description allowed for inclusion of other walks of thought including atheism and deism, which in my opinion is needed at the start of an Arab movement against religion.

Is this God?

Why is there a preserved plate?
Why are there writers from angels?
Why there is a Squeak of pens Mohammed has heard when approached God in his Maraj trip?
Does god need a plate to write what he wants in?
Does god forget or does he need to review his thoughts?
I can understand humans need for books and plates to keep there records but what is the need of god for plates or even writers to keep his words or his orders.

A general look to Islamic God “Allah” reveals a picture of extraordinary king from that period of time.
In this picture god has a throne with eight carriers of it, we can find this image here were he says:
“And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them.” [69:17] Al-Haqqah

this throne comes as a proof or as an evidence of his great power and his great kingdom. As there is no king without a throne same as any king of that time, thus Islam gave a great attention to this throne and its size, place or what it represents.

As other kings, this great God-King “Allah“ has soldiers “the angels “ who are loyal to him. Those angels have especial class same as nobles or close collaterals and they are: Gabriel, Michael, Asra .
Gabriel represents the personal representative of God as we can find in :
“Endued with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne” [81:20] Al-Taqwir
While Michael’s responsibility was water, plants and God’ grants. Many angels were writers of god’s deeds :
“Kind and honorable,- Writing down (your deeds)” [82:11] Al-Infitar
And according to Mohammed they were writing on papers and with an ink that can get dry:
“The pens have been lifted and the ink has dried.” Al Jamae al sahih 7957

This great God-King has a dignity and domination that makes all move rank upon rank in order just behind him if he moved or walked:
“And thy Lord cometh, and His angels, rank upon rank” [89:22] Al-Fajr.
No one dares to talk in his presence as he has a complete control on his soldiers by the great power and influence he has.
“The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (God) Most Gracious, and He will say what is right.” [78:38] An-Naba
He also has slaves (human race) breed in his kingdom and he blesses them with his grants.
“If ye would count up the favours of God, never would ye be able to number them: for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [16:18] Al-Nahl.
And who disobey him shall be tortured severely and he who obeys him shall be blessed and honored.
“Then shall anyone who has done an atom’s weight of good, see it!” [99:7] Al-Zalzala

“And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil, shall see it.” [99:8] Al-Zalzala

As any king of his time, Islamic God has an hour where you can ask from him what you want. Thus who asks him will be given without consideration (the Kadar evening, Friday’ hour),. And also has an hour where doesn’t response or accepts any prayer (before the sun set whereas the sun is between the devils horns ). This was the habits of AL Manathera' kings, the lucky days and the misfortune or unlucky days.

And this God-King is also the justice, the goodness, wisdom, knowledge, mercy and all those adjectives that almost every verse in Al Quran ends with.
To complete this picture of this God-King we must add the secessionist general. Thus Lucifer or Satan was this noble knight who arrogantly seceded when one of those slaves (Adam) has been promoted to higher class even than him and has been asked to prostrate to him.
“So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together: [38:73] Not so Iblis: he was haughty, and became one of those who reject Faith. [38:74] (God) said: "O Iblis! What prevents thee from prostrating thyself to one whom I have created with my hands? Art thou haughty? Or art thou one of the high (and mighty) ones?" [38:75] (Iblis) said: "I am better than he: thou createdst me from fire, and him thou createdst from clay." [38:76]” Sad.
Lucifer or Iblis (the Islamic name) seceded in a very silly naïve attitude as the God-King didn’t punish him or kill him (though he is supposed to be the only capable one) for disobeying his orders, just as it looks like a trick or it has been prepared to please the God-King.
“ (God) said: "Be thou among those who have respite." [7:15] Al-Araf

He didn’t kill or punish him but instead he said: here you are my despicable slave (Adam) who you despise, show me what you are doing to him; All Fall from Eden and let’s see a fight to death between two slaves.
The God-King is now pleased watching the fight and he doesn’t give an order to stop.

Doesn’t it make more sense than the story of which of them are the best in conduct?
“That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that we may test them - as to which of them are best in conduct.” [18:7] Al-Kahf.

At the end, the God-King kills the secessionist by the name of getting rid of evil:
“ (God) said: "Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee,- Hell will I fill with you all.” [7:18] Al-Araf

Is this the image of God that you want me to believe in???

Click Here to Read More...

The quranic miracles allegers play with words - the development of embryo

The original Arabic text could be found at The Network of Non-religious Arabs

The Author of the original Arabic text is: Yusuf Saqr

Quranic verse translation is adopted from Yousef Ali's Quran meanings with comments from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue

Translated By: Atheeriraqi

The quranic miracles allegers play with words, the development of embryo as a Sample

The Language is a set of sounds, it is actually codes like any other codes, it expresses our ideas and feelings. The definition of the Language is “Sounds by which each group of people describe their intentions”, said Ibn Jinni. This definition doesn’t describe the whole meaning of the word “Language”, however, it is the closest definition to the context of our subject.

The language consists of indicators – phonetic and written- which refer to “things in our actual surrounding” so when I spell or write the word “Bab باب”(“Door” in Arabic language), the sounds which I make is an indicator or a code which refers to something already existing in the actual life, that is, “Bab”(Door), the pronounced or written word has no indication by its own.

And in order that the language can achieve its goal, the communicating parties through the language should agree on the indication of each indicator and its meaning, because there is no relation between “Bab”(Door) as a word and the actual “Bab”(Door) except our agreement that these sounds refer to that actual entity, that is to say, if the Arabs have agreed, for instance, that “the thing that we pass thought it (i.e. the door)” may be called “Handabees(which is not a word in Arabic at all)”, then the proposed word “Handabees” would have remembered an Arab with the actual door instead of the Arabic word used today “Bab”.

As an example, when you watch a movie in a language that you haven’t learnt, or when a group of people speak with each other in a different language of yours, then the sounds that they pronounce will not achieve its aim to you, and the same applies when you speak your own language which they haven’t learnt,

Starting from this introduction we say:

The qur’anic words which some (Muslim) theologists consider to be a miracle, those words exist already among Arabs and are aware of their meanings, so, if the Arabs have not been familiar with the meaning of such words, the text could not be understood, exactly as if you listen to a foreign language which you have not learnt. So, when Muhammad has mentioned in the Qur’an the word “Mudghaمضغة” as a stage of the development of the embryo, Quran said:

[23:13] Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;

[23:14] Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh…etc

there should be already a meaning for this word known to the Arabs at that time, it is of course true that the Quran included words which had no meaning in the actual life of Arabs like “Sakar سقر”, however, the meaning of those words have been explained by Quran itself or “Hadith”(speech of Muhammad), e.g. “Sakar” is “wadi in Jahannam” (a valley in the hill) and the Arabs already knew what the words “wadi” and “Jahannam” mean, so they could have an idea about the meaning of the word “Sakar”, but the case is different when we deal with the word “Mudgha” as its meaning was already known to the Arabs at the time of Muhammad.

But how could these words enter the Arabic language at that time? That is, how could the Arabs before Muhammad know those things (e.g. “Mudgha”) and coined words which describe them? This is easy to answer, it is simply known after the abortion, Yes, because abortion can happen at any stage of pregnancy, for instance, there are some pathological cases which the woman may miscarry many times in different months, and the miscarried fetus take every time a different shape, so it was necessary to coin words to describe each stage of the abortion. So they coined the words “Mudgha المضغة” and “Alaqa(1) العلقة ” ….etc

And because the Arabic language –and I think all Semitic- depends on deriving new words from a certain root of a word – for instance the arabic word “Mahmoolمحمول ” that we use nowadays to describe the “Mobile phone”, it is derived from the root “Hamlحَمل = to carry”, therefore, the word “Mahmool” refers to that we carry the mobile with us wherever we go - , it is easy to predict that Arabs have derived words for each stage that we mentioned, it is not difficult to understand that each word of those which Quran mentioned has been derived from a root which resembles the state of the embryo at the relevant stage. “Mudgha“ for instance, has been derived from the root „Madhaga مَضَغَ = to chew“, i.e. the stage when the embryo resembles the chewed lump of flesh” and so on… all these likening are just a simile which helps to understand the meaning, but do not describe the reality of the object, in the relevant stage the embryo is not a chewed lump of flesh, but something alike, and there is no scientific miracle here but an expression which shows shortage and ignorance of the coiners of the word not from Muhammad who has merely used it as he has heard and known.

There is a very important point, not only concerning the Quranic text of the development of embryo but relating to all the verses of Quran which the quranic miracles allegers use, this point is:

Is it possible to broaden the meaning of the word more than it really refers to? Namely to say that this “word” refers to that “thing” without any prior agreement ? (of the Arabs at the time of Muhammad). In order that my speech will be clear, is it possible that somebody says to me “Iftah Al-Babافتح الباب = open the door” and I understand it „open your heart” because the heart is the door to our friendship. Actually this is possible but within limits and regulations, otherwise there would be no meaning of our speech. One of these regulations is those of figuration (simile, metonymy and metaphor ..etc) as when I say: “Tirtu min al-farah طرت من الفرح = I flied because of happiness” I do not mean flying literally but just to describe my state of happiness, but “Al-Majaz المجاز = the figuration" as the Arab rhetorical specialists say e.g. Abdul-Qahir Al-Jurjani is “passing from the actual meaning to another one because a relation between the actual meaning and the new meaning exists”, that is, the relation between flying and the happiness, this rule should not be ignored, however, the subject of the regulation of figuration is a big issue and I do not think that the miracles allegers mean it, there is no relation to it in our point of discussion, add to that the differences among Muslims as some of them refuse that Quran includes figuration.

Therefore, there is no reason for broadening the meaning of Quranic verses but “Al-Ta’weel التأويل” which means that one (i.e. a miracles alleger) takes words and understand them in a way deviating it from the actual meaning, and this is our point of discussion in this article. As one says to his wife –when they are guests- “what time is it?” and his wife understands that they have been late and they should leave but he is embarrassed to say that in front of the hosts.

That is exactly what the miracle allegers do, they read in Quran the word “Mudhga مضغة = a chewed lump of flesh" and say : “This what we call nowadays ……….(they put a modern scientific term in the blank)” this is exactly what they do.

A good example of that, when the people thought that the planets around the earth are seven planets, the quranic miracles allegers have interpreted the seven firmaments mentioned in Quran as those seven planets, so they have given the word firmament a different meaning “i.e. planet”, but when the scientists of astronomy have discovered that there are nine planets (moving round the sun at the time of the writer and since 2006 they are considered to be eight according to IAU: the translator), After that discovery, they have changed their mind about the interpretation of “the seven firmaments”, And I have heard that there are some researches which expect that two other planets are going to be discovered, so they will be eleven and the miracle allegers have said that the Quran has mentioned the eleven planets in a verse in “Sura = Chapter of Quran” called “Yusuf = Joseph“, here it is: “[12:4] Behold! Joseph said to his father: "O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to me!".

I have read this – news with its interpretation in an Islamic magazine. “the miracles allegers added other two planets (Pseudo Science), so the planets have been eleven at the time when they were considered to be nine and continued with this allegation till the IAU stated at their conference in 2006 that the planets are eight after expelling Pluto: the translator”

The question is : Can’t I give any word you say any other meaning I want then I say “oh, what you said is a miracle?, of course I can, here is an example:

There is a verse of Al-Mutanabby “An Arab poet expected to claim being a prophet at his time, lived 915-965 AD: the translator”, he described fever “Humma in Arabic” as follows:

“My visitor seems as if it were shy

it does not visit me but in the darkness”

Can’t I search in the scientific researches to find something to allege that the fever would be more acute at the darkness of the night and the microbe never reaches the highest activity but at a “specified hour” at the night. And this is what is meant by the poet “Al-Mutanabby”.

He has also another verse which means that the disk(of the sun) has never appeared one day, and the people (the people who believed him) thought that the sun will never shine again.

Isn’t it possible that one alleges that this poet has meant that the sun never shines because he has known that the rotation of the earth around the sun and around itself is the reason of seeing the sun not the sun itself is moving and ………(and allege what you want)!!

(the last paragraph has been edited slightly by the translator)

The examples are so many.

We can only speak about “miracles” when Quran refers to “scientific facts” very clearly and obviously, then and only then we shall start speaking about it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Alaqa back to article

the word “Alaqa” can have different meanings, the one that has been considered almost always till the twentieth century in the “Tafseer” (interpretations of the Quran) was “congealed blood” as Yusuf Ali translated it, which is actually a scientific mistake because blood can grow into nothing, However, another meaning is possible which Quran miracles allegers use nowadays, that is “the thing which clings” as Maurice Bucaille alleged to be a scientific fact”.

The truth is that Arabs already used the verb “Alaqa” (to cling) to describe a woman to become pregnant, so when Muhammad has said it, he added nothing from his side, the miracle should accordingly belong to paganism as Arabs were pagan at that time.

Here are some quotations from Arabic lexicons:

Lisan Alarab لسان العرب: under the word “Alaq”

وعلِقت المرأَة بالولد وكل أنثى عُلُوقًا حبلت

A woman „alaqa“ t with the child, and any female is „Ulooq“ = to become pregnant

Taj Al-Uroos تاج العروس:

وعلِقَت المرْأةُ علَقاً، أي: حبِلَتْ

The woman „alaqa“ t alaqan = to become pregnant

t : is used in Arabic for the verb whose subject is feminine

alaqan: is an assertion to the verb “alaqa”

the sources in the lexicons (in Arabic)

http://lexicons.ajeeb.com/openme.asp?fileurl=/html/7075255.html

http://islamport.com/d/3/lqh/1/70/886.html

So my opinion is that Muhammad has formed the noun "Alaqa علقة" to describe the first stage of pregnancy as the verb "alaqat" means “(for a female) to become pregnant”, the stage before the "Alaqa" is the “Nutfa” which is a drop of sperm (it exists without causing pregnancy necessarily).

The translator

Click Here to Read More...

The rotation of the earth between science and religion- by Hairan

The rotation of the earth between science and religion

The original Arabic text could be found at The Forum of Arab Areligionists*

The Author of the original text is: Hayran

Quranic verse translation is adopted from Yousef Ali's Quran meanings and from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue.

Translated By: Areo

* Areligionists is the translators attempt to translate the Arabic word Ladeeni which describes those who don't believe in a religion, such broad classification is not found in the English literature as far as my knowledge, the classification expands to include Atheist, Agnostics, Deists, while it might seem that an Agnostic is a similar description, the fact is Agnostics (especially from the Arabs perspective) could have a neutral stance towards religion, while Areligionists are quite sure on their stance towards religion as being from a human source. Additionally such broader description allowed for inclusion of other walks of thought including atheism and deism, which in my opinion is needed at the start of an Arab movement against religion.

To start with and before I delve into translating the article I shall feed you back on some of the ideas and different meanings of the Arabic Verse (Ayah) under consideration

In An-Naml (The Ant) Surah (which is somewhat similar to the bibles chapter) we find the ayah (verse) number 82

The literal pronunciation goes as follows:

Wa Tara AlGibal Tahsaboha Gamedah Wa hiya Tamor Mar Alsahab

Hereby is the Arabic meaning as per my understanding:

Wa : and

Tara : you see ( the verb see in present (sometimes the Arabic language could use present verbs to indicate future tense)

Algibal : Al = The & Gibal = Mountains ie: the mountains

Tahsaboha : the verb tahsab could have various meanings as per context, while the literal translation I found in the dictionary is to investigate, the meaning here is more of the verb Tazonaha which actually revolves around the meaning "to think of it, to belive about it, to take as, to regard etc.."

While the addition ha means the feminine gender (earth)

So I shall translate tahsaboha as think of it as

Gamedah : Solid, hard, stiff, inflexible, rigid are literal translations, but the meaning is more like "still", from the context

Wa : again means and

Heay : it in the female gender

Tamor : passes by

Mar : the passage of

Alsahab : al = The & Sahab = Clouds

Accordingly my understanding which is quite acceptable from an Arabic speaker's point of view is:

And you see the mountains and think it still while it passes by as the passage of clouds.

While the following translation is what Yousuf Ali presented in his "The meanings of Quran"

88. Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away:

Note the "shall" here, which indicates his understanding of the verse to be figuratively speaking of the future. While this is not the case of the actual text, but he does have a valid point that we shall see in the original article, which made him transfer the act of movement to the future.

Having said that let us return to Hairan's article

The rotation of earth around the sun and around its axis is a modern scientific fact, that is undoubted by any scientist – as far as I know- I think that the idea has long left the territory of a theory and reached the pillar of an established fact, with advances in cosmology, astronomy and technological science, and the increase of humans capabilities, we have achieved shifting our frame of reference, by moving our equipment to outer space, and actually photographing the earth, now scientists build quite a lot on their futuristic knowledge of the exact location of the earth on a certain date, etc…

In the near and distant past, man thought-according to Ptolemy – that the earth was both stationary and the center of the universe, all celestial bodies in the sky rotated round it.. This was the common belief, but it wasn't the only belief, for Pythagoras said of the rotation of the earth around the sun, and Aristarchus (310-230 B.C) said of the rotation of the earth and the stillness of the starts, and that our observations of stars movement are but a reflection of the earth's movement.

Copernicus in turn proposed the rotation of the earth around the sun, and that the sun is the center of the universe.

And then Galileo and Kepler between them, proved scientifically the case of earth rotation around the sun and around its axis, Galileo famous persecution by the Catholic Church is well known and needless to mention, for he was accused of blasphemy and heresy for claiming earth rotation.

Enter the age of information revolution in the 20th century; there is no doubt now that the rotation of the earth is a fact. The rise of the age of science was accompanied by an evolvement in the Muslims community, with such claims as : hey this was mentioned in our book since 1400 years, read the Quran Surat An Naml 88 " Wa Tara AlGibal Tahsabha Gamedah Wa hiya Tamor Mar Alsahab"

"And you see the mountains and think it still while it passes by as the passages of clouds."

Translators note: Here I used my translation, as Yousuf Ali's translation, is by no means indicative of such claims.

Strangely enough is that this fact mentioned in the Muslims book since 1400 years, never gained the attention of the Muslims scientists or theologians throughout the centuries, until it became an established fact by the West and its scientists.

But is this really what the Quran says?

Personally I don't think so… on the contrary, I think that the Quran supports the theory of the stillness of the earth, and rejects its rotation.

So let us study the verses together may Allah enlighten us both.

Mr. Zaghlool Elnajar says:

This Holy verse of Suart An Naml indicates the rotation of the earth around its axis while facing the sun, as the mountains are part of the earth so if it moves as the clouds this is an implied indication to the rotation of the earth around its axis, it is customary of the Quran to indicate cosmic facts implicitly, such that the generations of different eras shall understand a certain meaning according to their acquired knowledge, the meaning of the verses remains wide enough to embrace any variation in the human knowledge pool, in an integration that never sees a contradiction. And as such this is one of the most powerful signs of the scientific miracle of Allah's Book. In the past times translators and commentators understood the verse as an indication of what will happen to the mountains on the day of doom or time of the end (Youm Al Kiamah) , but we know from the Quran that on that time the mountains will be fully blasted, and this implication found in the verse number 88 of Surat An Namel precedes all human knowledge in indicating the rotation of the earth. (Thanks to Zaghlool Alnajar)

Here Mr. Elnajar and those who followed his steps have committed a dire error, for he jumps on the wordings at the expense of context, to achieve his goal regardless of the facts, I shall assume for the sake of debate ( which is a false assumption as we shall later on see) that the verses are not actually referring to dooms day scenes but are referring to an every day occasion , do mountains really pass as clouds do?

To answer such question let us first examine what really is the passage of clouds.

Earth with all that it encompasses on its surface, in the deepness of its seas, and in its atmosphere are all obeying the same moving effect, clouds are no exception, all yield to earth in its movement around the sun, accordingly the clouds movement observed by humans from earth is but a relative movement attributed to the wind's effect which pushes the clouds, That is to say that the movement of the clouds is of two components, the former being due to the movement of earth itself and the later the relative movement to earth which is what we observe, as we are also moving with earth around the sun

So is the Quranic expression an accurate one in light of this?

On the contrary.. I see it as a grave scientific mistake, for the movement-that the callers of scientific miracles (thereafter named miracleists) claim- of the mountains which resembles the clouds movement is impossible, as the mountains do not move relative to earth.

Had the verse declared , you see the earth still while it actually moves like the clouds that would have been a little on the side of rationality and accuracy, but to use the mountains to indicate earth, is unacceptable as mountains are part of earth and the part do not compensate for the whole.

Translators note: take the following example to see what the author means:

The clouds moves does not imply that the earth is moving

Also my arm is moving does not imply that I am moving. While the other way round is true.

End of note

Additionally the comparison between the earth movement (the whole) and the movement of the clouds (a part) is acceptable to indicate the difference in the types of movement , while to compare two parts (the mountains and the clouds) we have to refer them to the same frame of reference (the whole) which in our case is earth.

Some might object on the basis of the wording used "tahsaboha" (which means think or belief as previously explained), and argue that the word indicates relativity , but the verse states that the movement of the mountains is exactly similar to the movement of the clouds "Tamor mar alsahb" (moves as the clouds) and it is unacceptable to change the wording form "Tamor mar alsahb" (moves as the clouds) to "Tamor ka mar alsahb" (moves as if like the clouds) as it is well known that the meanings of the Quran is very sensitive to adding alphabets which changes the meaning (The author is indicating that had this been the intention of the author of the Quran he could have simply added the Ka alphabet: The translator)

Also the word "tahsaboha" (think that it) is clearly referring to the stillness of the mountains, as it is to the addressee (the human) which agrees with his frame of reference, that is to say that if we accept the wording "tahsaboha" to be referring to the relative movement then the movement should be relative to the addressee (Translators note: who is of course in our days still standing on earth and even if we change his frame of reference then the analogy to cloud movement will be false, as now he is seeing the clouds compound movement and the tahsaboha loses its meaning, for he no longer see it as stationary)

So the movement referred to in the Quran must have another meaning, different to the rotation of the earth, for as far as I know the Himalaya and other mountains have not been in the habit of moving recently.

But are the Holy verses really referring to a natural observation or are they referring to a metaphysical incident, which will occur on dooms day?

I would like you to all note Zaglool Najars interpretation and his argument based upon the blasting idea that makes him deduce that this verse is not referring to dooms day.

But let us recall the verses from Surat An Naml (as per Yousuf Ali's interpretation only verse 88 is followed by the translator as Ali's translation is evidently not in favor of Zaglool's interpretation):

87. And the Day that the Trumpet will be sounded - then will be smitten with terror those who are in the heavens, and those who are on earth, except such as Allah will please (to exempt): and all shall come to His (Presence) as beings conscious of their lowliness.

88. Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is) the artistry of Allah, who disposes of all things in perfect order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do.

88.And you see the mountains and think it still while it passes by as the passage of clouds…………………….

89. If any do good, good will (accrue) to them therefrom; and they will be secure from terror that Day.

90. And if any do evil, their faces will be thrown headlong into the Fire: "Do ye receive a reward other than that which ye have earned by your deeds?"

As I see the preceding and following verses to the verse under consideration are clearly referring to dooms day, the

day the trumpet is blown, the day of fright, the day faces are smothered in fire……. So are miracleists still insistent on removing the verse out of its normal context, in order to align it with their unfortunately fanciful thoughts?

Some might see that the verse carries a double meaning, but could one verse have two contradicting meanings at the same time?

I see this as strange, for either the verse is referring to regular every day observation or to dooms day scenery, and as per the context it is referring to dooms day, but as per miracleists it is referring to regular natural phenomenon claiming that the verse of blasting proves that this is not a dooms day occurrence.

Clearly this is a feeble argument to anyone who has somewhat read the Quran. To know why it is so we need but only search for the word Al-gibal (mountains) in the Quran, to know that the moving of the mountains, along with blasting, crumbling and alteration to fluffy wool, is part of dooms day scenery, likewise stillness, stabilization and anchoring are the every day regular life style, so are they passing or are they stationary? Two contradictory meanings that are not solved except after accepting that they are describing two separate incidents or scenes, one the every day and other the dooms day

Such interpretation neither agrees nor contradicts science, as we are discussing supernatural metaphysical incident that has yet to occur, so there is no evidence that they are either true or false.

(Translators note: in spite of this Muslims will not let it be, they have to have this anchor for their faith the scientifically miraculous claim is kind of proof for them that they are following the correct religion, and they seem to be in a desperate need for such proof)

The deduction of earth stillness through examination of Quran

I am aware that the coming part is subject to much controversy between disagreeing parties, as it is built on certain interpretations of various Quranic verses, for there is no such verse that openly states that the earth is still, or that it doesn’t move. Additionally even these verses that could be considered as bearing such meaning could be easily considered by theologians as motashabehat (***unclear see translators footnote at end of article for a description of unclear or motahsabehat verses) and never settle or agree on these verses status, but our opinion is built on several evidence that we consider (or others consider) solid, additionally we are basing our conclusion on the agreement of Islamic theologians , interpreters, and the prophet's close companions and followers from the very first days of the rise of Islam on the subject of the earth stillness , for these are the people that the Quran descended in their language and the language of their era.

While the claim by miracleists that the Quran intentionally refrained from shocking them by stating facts far from their acceptance and understanding is quite a silly far fetched claim , for all religions without exception were founded on demolition of established facts and dogmas and exposure of false but accepted beliefs, so really did Mohammed know about these cosmological facts but refrained from mentioning them to his followers in fear of raising turmoil.

Didn't Allah inform him in the Quran " O Messenger. proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith." So did Mohammed know what the miracileists claim today or did he not?

If he did, then he did not proclaim the message, and if not then such claims are false as even the apostle of Islam knew nothing about.

Regardless let us identify Islamic evidence that earth is still and non-rotational.

Evidence # 1 the earth is fixed by means of the mountains

6. Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, 7. And the mountains as pegs? Suarat An Nabaa , Yusuf Ali

6. Have we not made the earth leveled (smooth) and the mountains stakes "Translator"

A Watad (peg or stake) is a wooden piece driven into a wall or the earth and the plural is Awtad (pegs or stakes); Allah almighty says and the pharaoh the lord of stakes (Awtad) which was interpreted as: He had ropes and stakes for entertainment and also that this was referring to his armies whom secured his dominion and kingdom ship (adapted from Lisan Alarab)

32. And the mountains hath He firmly fixed;- Suarat An Nazeaat - Yusuf Ali

32. And settled the mountains: "Translator"

Settle something (Arsa Alshaiee) : fixed it, Settled the peg :pushed it into ground (Alwagiz Lexicon (dictionary))

So Mountains are pegs that were pushed into the ground….for what purpose?

He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; - Lukman 10 and Annahl 15 *

31. And We have set on the earth mountains** standing firm, lest it should shake with them,*

* The word that Yousuf Ali translated shake is Tamid which we shall see later

** The ayah did not state mountains but things that settle (settlers or anchors) which is interpreted as mountains from other verses

Accordingly mountains are as pegs to stop the earth from doing something called Almaid so what is Tamid verb and what is Almaid state?

*Mad is past tense of the verb Tamid (feminine) or Yamid (masculine)

Mad Yamid Maidan : moved , deviated(swerve) The Mohit Alfairozi Abadi Dictionary

Mad Alsarab (mirage) : Go hazy , Mad Maidan : Stager and swing, Mad Yamid : if he moves in strutting and prancing (maybe like a happy drunk the translator), Madat Alagsan (Branches): swayed

From Lisan Alarab

Kad Mad Fahowa Maed (He Mad then he is a Madder Abou Elhaitham:

Al Maeed (Someone who is under the verb mad) is someone who is riding the sea and is nauseated from the stank of the waters, gets dizzy and nearly passes out then it is said the sea maded with him Also Abu Alabass said referring to the verse lest it tamid with you i.e.: move and shake violently Alfaraa said I Heard the Arabs mentioning : Almaida Those whom are sea sick.

Lisan Alarab

Mad Meim Yaa Dal : Something Mad i.e.: moved The branches Madat i.e.; Swayed- Mokhtar Elsehah Dictionary

Accordingly the mountains are the pegs (anchors) that fix the earth in place in order to prevent its movement or sway and rotation… In short to allow the earth to become a settled place or as Yousuf Ali Translates AnNaml 61 " . Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable;"

While the translator's is" Or, Who has made the earth (karara) tranquil; made rivers in its midst; and provided it with anchors;"

As Karar is what has stabilized and settled down in place, i.e.: fixed a still and tranquil fixation. ( The lexicon of Quran meaning by Al-Asfahani)

Evidence # 2 No indications of earth movement

The earth is mentioned nearly 450 times in the Holy Quran, not once was it attributed with an act that indicates movement, including the act of prostration, which included all creatures except the skies and the earth, while we find for instance that the sun was merely mentioned less than 30 times, but in spite attributed several motional descriptions such as running(coasting), swimming, prostration ..etc.

18. Seest thou not that to Allah bow down in worship all things that are in the heavens and on earth,- the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals; and a great number among mankind? But a great number are (also) such as are fit for Punishment: and such as Allah shall disgrace,- None can raise to honour: for Allah carries out all that He wills. – Suart Alhaj

The verse illustrates that all beings prostrates to Allah except earth and heavens, as what is performing the act are the creatures residing in them

Evidence # 3 the summon of earth at the beginning of creation

11. Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience." Suart Fusliat

Earth and the sky were summoned into their current location once since the start of creation, and then settled down in place as an obedience to Allah.

Evidence # 4 the general association of earth and the sky versus the sun and the moon.

For the earth and the sky are still, while the sun and the moon are coasting in their orbits.

Evidence # 5 the earth is a dwelling, a placement, an erection

64. It is Allah Who has made for you the earth as a resting place(Karar), and the sky as a canopy, Surat Ghafir

10. It is He Who has spread out the earth for (His) creatures:Suarat Alrahman Yousuf Ali

10. And the earth he placed for creatures.-The translator

25. And among His Signs is this, that heaven and earth stand by His Command: then when He calls you, by a single call, from the earth, behold, ye (straightway) come forth.- Al-Rum Yusuf Ali

A dwelling is Karar in Arabic is referring to stillness (we say kar for something meaning that it stopped movement i.e. tranquil), and the earth is placed by the power of Allah and cannot leave its location it is also erect as the sky.

Evidence # 6 the earth is held or gripped

41. It is Allah Who sustains the heavens and the earth, lest they cease Fatir-Yusuf Ali

41 And Allah holds the heavens and the earth least they cease to exist. The translator

So the earth and the heavens are held by Allah's order else they would cease

Allah does not grip any other celestial body, while he does hold the birds throughout their flight (a movement) so as to prevent their fall to earth, but the context is evident that the meaning is to maintain their flight, while the gripping of the sky and earth is to prevent their disappearance and to prevent the sky to fall collapse on earth,

65.He withholds the sky (rain) from failing on the earth except by His leave- Al Haj Yousuf Ali

*Rain is an addition by Yusuf Ali.

Obviously the sky is directly located above the earth and that it is still , and if Allah lets go it shall collapse on earth

Evidence from Sunah (Mohammed's sayings and deeds) and Salaf (Mohammed's companions' narrations, sayings and deeds)

The Muslim nation with its diverse vast 73 parties have never reached a consensus on a certain subject, as theirs on the saying that the earth is the center of the universe, and that all things between it and the sky rotates around it, and that the sky and the earth are stationary.

Ibn Taimaih Says:

The Skies are Round, as per the Muslim Scientist (Muslims uses the term scientist to indicate their theologians), it has been numerously narrated of various Islamic scientist and Imams (Islamic priests) such as Imam Abu Mohammed Ibn Hazm and Abu Elfarag ELJawzey, they reference both the book of Allah and the Sunah references, they simplified the matter by evidences of auditory recurrence (repetitive narrations) but also scientific proof is available, and I know of no Muslim scientist whom denies the fact."

Ibn Al Manawy Says:

The Earth globe is fixed at the center of the sky globe resembling a point in a circle, this is evident from observing celestial bodies which are seen from earth in the same place in the sky which means that earth is in the center of the sky.

Additionally Muslims calculate the distance from earth to heaven as a walked journey that takes up 500 years due to the verse that states:

5. He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning. Alsajdah

Hayran

***Footnote: The meaning of motashabehat :

The motashabehat is another wonder of the ambiguity of the Quran

The reference is found in Surat Al-Imran verse no. 7

7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.-Yusuf Ali

While Ali's interpretation gives us a glimpse of the problem, a better understanding could be achieved by replacing the words fundamental and allegorical, which he used as an interpretation of the words Mohkamat and Motashabehat

To start with Allah states that he gave us two types of verses and the context follows that they are antonymous, in no way is Ali's choice of words indicating this.

The word mohkam is translated as; coherent, well knit, cohesive, solid ,firmly connected

While the word motashabeh is translated as; alike, similar, analogous, parallel,

So we have two types of verses one mohkam and other motashabeh, and the unworthy follow the motashabeh why is it so to seek its hidden meanings,

As far as I see in light of this the text is referring to clear verses that are easily understood and unclear verses that have hidden meanings and are misleading. A lot is to be said on the above verse but its inclusion here is not for such reason.

Click Here to Read More...

Atheist Thoughts

Original author of the Arabic text is Almostashar
Link to the original Arabic text
Translated by Duke Fleed

*They claim that God is unlimited by time, while he states in the Koran that he created the earth in six days, and that angels and spirits rise up to him on command in a thousand years.

*They claim that God is not subject to reason, while he states in the Koran that he feels anger, satisfaction, and embarrassment. He can be deceitful, he speaks and asks questions, he laments and tortures. Is this not caused by man and his doing?

*They claim that God does not create in vain, yet he has no need for his creations. Therefore creation is the ultimate vanity.

* Does God need angels and a throne? Of course not! Then their creation is in vain.

*They claim that God is above. Which part of the earth are they talking about, The North Pole or the South Pole?

*Are God and man two separate entities? If the answer is yes, then God is limited by space, and if the answer is no, then man and God are one.

* They claim that man’s misfortunes happen to test his patience. Why do animals suffer the same misfortunes? Does this happen to test their patience as well?

*They claim that God is capable of doing anything by saying “let it be”. We have no proof that it has ever been used; therefore this is a false claim.

*Is punishment for gloating and revenge, or is it for deterring others? If it is for gloating and revenge, then it is an emotionally driven act that is beneath God. If punishment is a deterrent, then what is the value of punishment in the afterlife?

*They claim that God is eternal. Prove it!!

*God is thanked when I do a good deed; however when I do a bad deed God is not cursed. Why do we give God credit when credit is not due?

*God has been created by the primitive mind to explain many phenomena, and the modern mind still adheres to that delusion despite its primitive origin.

*Why is it that in our present time prophets, genies, magic, and paranormal phenomena have not appeared. Ignorance is the birth place of superstitions.

*Hearing the word God always reminds me of injustice, backwardness, racism, ignorance, and evil. All are synonymous with God.

*Religion is ugly makeup to improve the image of God.

*God says that eclipses are signs to intimidate his subjects, and he orders them to pray to dissipate the darkness. Science explains how they happen and how we can predict them and encourages us to enjoy watching them. So who is more knowledgeable?

*God turns murderers into prophets and messengers and lets them into heaven. Hell is the place for philosophers, thinkers, and geniuses.

*They taught us that God exists and is alive and all living things have a creator. Who created God?

*They deny evolution, yet it happens thousands of times every day. Aren’t we all the product of a sperm and an ovum that has evolved to become a human embryo and then further evolved to become an intelligent human? Don’t they realize that?

*Those who claim the existence of God are desperate to detect his existence by uncertain theories and hypotheses.

*Mohamed forgives those who disbelieve in God but does not forgive those who have done him harm.

*Mohamed the messenger of mercy kills treacherously and mutilates his enemies, so how is he different from gang leaders and the Mafia?

*Capturing women and children as spoils of war, looting, and slavery are the results of Mohamed’s wars.

*I do not know what the difference is when you pray to Allah, or a stone, or a cow, or Krishna, or Buddha, or Jesus, the result is always the same.

*I do not know what the difference is when you circle around, idolize, and kiss a stone, and pray to Allah next to it, and when you circle around, and idolize a cow and pray to Krishna next to it. A cow can be more beneficial than a stone.

*Which is more beneficial to humanity and eases its suffering, Prophets of God or scientists and inventors, God’s books or science books?

*Religion considers it wise, logic, and just to cut off the hand of a thief who steals a quarter of a golden dinar (coin), while it does not cut off the hand of a person who steals millions by embezzlement, fraud, or cheating.

*Religion considers it logic and just to stone and whip a poor fornicator while it allows the rich to enjoy sexual relations with an unlimited numbers of female slaves and captive women.

*Religion considers it humane to enslave humans like cattle, legalize slavery, and encourages it during wars, although it is not a human need, while it forbids fornication, although sex is a human need.

*Clerics tell us that the great divine justice mandates the existence of the rich and the poor, the happy and the miserable, the ruler and the ruled, and all are subject to the same test during life. Furthermore, they think it is possible and just for a happy, rich ruler to go to heaven while the ruled who is miserable, and poor might go to hell.

*Do they want us to believe in God or in a hidden mysterious force? If it is the former, what is the evidence of his existence, if it is the latter, we don’t need to believe in it, facts impose themselves.

* When clerics try to convince you of their beliefs, they deceive you and mislead you by omitting some facts and emphasizing others without a conscience just like con men.

* Clerics feel that it is fair to find fault in their opponent’s actions and disregard their own obvious faults.

* It is natural for people to create a particular legislation then replace, modify, or delete it according to the current circumstances. When similar actions are performed by God, they are just as absurd as the absurdity of his existence.

* When the right environment exists, anyone is capable of claiming to be a prophet and people will believe him.

* People who seek the truth only need to open their eyes to find it.

* It is schizophrenic how they turn to the west for knowledge, civilization, prosperity, justice, and freedom, while they despise and curse it at night behind closed doors.

*They bawl from religious platforms and televised media promoting virtue, self denial, and justice, while they are the ones who live in palaces, with extravagant lifestyles, and big bank accounts. They hail and pray in their Friday sermons for the biggest thief, the great adulterer, and the wise unjust.

*They believe that it is fair to spend billions building temples, mosques, and churches and printing holy books, while billions of people suffer and die of poverty, hunger, and ignorance.

* Religions are tools in the hands of clerics and rulers to control the masses.

*The great conspiracy between rulers and clerics still fools the people.

*The holy books only mention the Israelites, and their silly repetitive prophets. What about the civilizations of the old world, the scientists and philosophers and sages of Greece and the Greeks, Assyrians, Romans and Sumerians, China and others who influenced modern world civilizations? Which ones are more worth mentioning?

* Clerics who promote the alleged scientific miracles in the holy books are like a drowning man grasping at a straw, they are very desperate especially after the emergence of the current civilization has bombed their minds, books and religions. Once a scientific discovery has been made, they shamelessly claim that it has been already mentioned in their books. Why haven’t they discovered that before? How come God has not sent with each prophet a physical, chemical, or mathematical law so we can praise and thank him for saving the humanity from ignorance? Instead he bothers us with reading his holy books that are full of repetitive myths, genies, and other nonsense.

Click Here to Read More...

An Example of Quranic discrepancies

The original Arabic text could be found at The Forum Of Arab Atheists

The Author of the original text is: Walid
Quranic verse translation is adopted from Yousef Ali's Quran meanings and from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue.
Translated By: Areo

Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy-An examination of Quranic discrepancy.

The Quran challenges its opposers with a verse well known to all of us – Say had it been from any but Allah we would have found a lot of discrepancies

To start with the word much is in itself an obvious discrepancy.
For a book from Allah would be refuted by one discrepancy not much
As a supreme being would be expected to provide a flawless text and just one flaw would render the text defunct, as the alleged qualities attributed to Allah in the Quran contradicts even the smallest of flaws or even a glimpse of one.

In spite of this I will examine some of the discrepancies I found in the text which I hope are quite obvious, in this I shall try to refrain from referring to such discrepancies swarming the internet on various Christian sites, which all are aware of.

Discrepancy # 1
When I mock someone for failure to achieve a certain task, and at the same time fail to achieve that same sort of thing, and ask believers to accept both attitudes in my favor isn’t that considered a discrepancy?
Isn’t taking two contradictory stances worth scrutiny?
Let us consider two incidents

Incident #1

Abraham versus Nimrod

Abraham in spite of the naïve presentation, asks Nimrod to present a stunning miracle as proof of his alleged divinity or power.
We do support Abraham in his legitimate request, which should come as a judge between false and truthful allegations

Nimrod could have of course countered Abraham with the same request, or a different one but didn’t, so the story goes

258. Hast thou not Turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham About his Lord, because Allah had granted him power? Abraham said: "My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death." He said: "I give life and death". Said Abraham: "But it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the east: Do thou then cause him to rise from the West." Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith. Nor doth Allah Give guidance to a people unjust.-AlBaqara 258

Very well so we deduce that failure to fulfill the challenge (requested miracle) is proof of a false allegation.
And that the request of a miracle is a legitimate one.

Does anyone disagree on my understanding of the verse?

Let us move on to the next verse

Incident # 2

Mohammed is speaking in the name of God, as he Allah will either not appear to humans or lower himself to them,
Fair enough a God and his eminence is appreciated
He chooses a certain human to represent him
Well that’s up to him no objections here

So the prophet is addressing people as Allah's representative
So how did the people respond to him?
Same as Abraham did with Nimrod
They asked him to present them with a miracle
What was his response?


Al-Isra 90-93
90. They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,
91. "Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water;
92. "Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us; or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face:
93. "Or thou have a house adorned with gold, or thou mount a ladder right into the skies. No, we shall not even believe in thy mounting until thou send down to us a book that we could read." Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- an apostle?"

Here the messenger denies the sender and merely acknowledges his humanity, as if the challenge was for him not for
the sender.

What is the difference between Mohammed (Allah's representative or spokesman) and Nimrod
Both failed the same test
But Quran asks followers to deem Nimrod and follow Mohammed
The question is dear constant believer isn’t this a discrepancy?


Discrepancy # 2

Al-Ahzab
40. Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.

Here Allah changes a certain principal; he has decided to stop sending messengers

Here the Quran contradicts itself
Either Allah is unjust
And this means all the Quran is refuted
Or he is just
And he will not judge people after the death of Mohammed

And by this once more the Quran contradicts itself
As Allah created humans to worship him
And worship requires a message
And a message requires a messenger

Some might object that the message is present
While the message is present, it does contain its stamp of self refutation, as it states that Allah will not punish without sending a messenger

So what do we believe?
Is Allah going to punish us or not?

Click Here to Read More...